#ozaviation

Audit Office report into ASA #Airservices proves misfeasance, due to the #OneSky purchasing and assessment procedure.

This misfeasance should be placed squarely at the feet of Michael MrDak, Head of Department for failing to institute proper procedures to ensure his satellite organisations:

CASA;

AirSerices;

ATSB;

etc were compliant with proper procedures.

Mrdak should resign now, be subject to Senate scrutiny or be sacked by Minister Chester.

From the ANAO report:

Conclusion

A key shortcoming in Airservices’ procurement policies and

6. procedures is that they do not give appropriate emphasis to the use of competitive processes. In addition, Airservices routinely failed to adhere to its policies and procedures in procuring services from ICCPM. As a result, Airservices’ procurement of services from ICCPM, on an exclusively sole-sourced basis, did not deliver value for money.

7. Airservices demonstrated a lack of organisational commitment to the effective implementation of probity principles in respect to the ICCPM arrangements. It was reasonably foreseeable that Airservices’ contracting of ICCPM to assist with the OneSKY Australia project would give rise to perceptions of conflicts of interest and, potentially, actual conflicts of interest.
But the ICCPM engagements were not effectively managed so as to ensure the OneSKY tender process was free of any concerns over conflict of interest that could impact on public confidence in the outcome.Supporting findings – Airservices’ engagement of ICCPM
8. Over the period examined by the ANAO (2012 to the end of 2015), Airservices had in place a procurement governance framework that sought to achieve value for money from procurement processes. Two key shortcomings were that the procurement governance framework did not:

• address Airservices entering into strategic partnerships and alliances; or
• adequately contemplate, or regulate, non-competitive approaches being adopted for procurements with a value of $50 000 or more.

9. In May 2013, Airservices and ICCPM agreed to enter into a strategic partnership for the duration of the OneSKY program. There was no business case prepared. In addition, no performance indicators were established to enable monitoring and evaluation of whether the
partnership was delivering the expected benefits. It was quite common for Airservices to use the relationship with ICCPM to engage individuals to undertake particular roles akin to an employee for extended periods, rather than build the organisation’s own capability.

10. The strategic relationship did not represent a procurement in itself. Each subsequent decision to engage specified personnel, or to acquire other services, via ICCPM represented discrete procurement decisions.

11. Airservices has made extensive use of ICCPM to assist with the delivery of the OneSKY Australia program. Since 2012, there have been 42 engagements of ICCPM employees and sub-contractors through 18 procurement processes. The engagements were given effect through
six contracts, 10 contract variations and four uses of an on-call services schedule under one of the contracts. Under the various contractual arrangements, Airservices agreed to pay ICCPM total fees of more than $9 million